1 The National Management of Migration Flows: The British

The National Management of Migration Flows: The British Experience
Draft Paper by Professor John Rex,
Professor Emeritus, University of Warwick.
The notion of the management of migration flows is one which is now in
common use. It seems to take a middle position between that of those who
believe that migration flows should follow their natural course without being
managed by national governments (Hayter, 2000, and Harris 2002) and those
who argue that immigration is undesirable in principle and that it should be
restricted to allow only a relatively immigrants who can occupy occupational
roles for which no individuals are available in the host society and whose culture
does not clash with that of this society (Migrationwatch 2002), (Coleman 1999)
(Goodhart 2004) ). It should not however be regarded as a value free position.
Other possibilities exist.
Earlier Discussions of the Control of Migration
Commonwealth Immigration Control
Before the fashion arose of speaking of management of migration flows there
was nonetheless a relevant debate in Britain going back to 1945 and even earlier.
The crucial date here was 1962. Before this date immigrants from the
Commonwealth were able to enter the United Kingdom freely, whereas anyone
coming from other countries was subject to severe restrictions. The principle
places of origin for Commonwealth immigrants were the Caribbean, the Indian
sub-continent, East and West Africa and Cyprus and Malta in the Mediterranean.
It was the coming of large numbers of `non-White immigrants however which
was the main focus of debate. One event of great symbolic importance was the
arrival in 1951 of the ship the Empire Windrush, with Caribbean immigrants. This
was the beginning of the West Indian immigration of the 1950s and 1960s. In the
later fifties there was an increase in immigration from India and Pakistan leading
to a demand for the control of Commonwealth immigration. This was reluctantly
1
conceded by the Conservative Home Secretary, Mr Butler. According to the
Immigration Control Act of that year new immigrants from the Commonwealth,
other than dependents were restricted to a total of 7000 and these were to be
either those with jobs to come to or those with special skills for which no British
candidates were available. In the 1962 Act there was also provision for a small
number of others at the discretion of the British government. The Labour Leader,
Gaitskell, declared that the Labour Party would reverse the Act using evidence
provided by the geographer Ceri Peach (1967) that there was a natural process of
immigration control which led to West Indian immigration varying according to
the numbers of jobs available. In fact when the Labour Party did come to power
in 1964 it accepted the basis of the 1962 Act and actually strengthened it by
abolishing the discretionary category.
Labours Acceptance of Racially Selective Immigration Control
Within the Labour government there was much discussion about the principle of
immigration control. Richard Crossman the Minister of Housing and Local
Government
recorded his belief that, since the electorate were in favour
of immigration control, the government should have immediately grasped the
nettle of accepting it. (Crossman 1979) Roy Hattersley on the other hand sought
to resolve the sense of guilt in the Labour Party by arguing that “without control
integration is impossible” but that “without integration control is morally
indefensible” (Rex and Tomlinson 1979) Hattersley and Crossman both saw nonWhite immigration as the problem.
The Hattersley formula was spelt out in institutional terms. Integration was to be
achieved through the setting up of a National Committee for Commonwealth
Immigrants (NCCI) chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury and including well
known spokesmen for the various immigrant groups1 who would represent the
immigrants politically The Archbishop also expressed his concern that the stigma
imposed on immigrants by the control process might make integration
1
The representatives of the immigrant communities chosen were DR David Pitt a West Indian
doctor and a one-time candidate in a Parliamentary election, Vishnu Sharma a leading Indian
trade unionist and Hamza Alavi a University lecturer in Manchester.
2
impossible. When he continued to express these fears the NCCI was abolished
and replace by the Community Relations Commission which it was said would
help to integrate immigrants paternalistically through various forms of social
work rather than giving them a political voice.
The other element involved in integration was a legal one. A Race Relations Act
was passed in 1964 outlawing racism in public places and this was extended in
1968 to cover housing and employment2. The implementation of this Act was
assigned to a Race Relations Board headed by Mark Bonham Carter. The two
separate bodies the Community Relations Commission and the Race Relations
Board were eventually combined in A Commission for Racial Equality which
was set up in 1976.
East African Asians and Patriality
A central problem arose from the fact that the 1962 Act and the policy of the
Labour party after 1965 were designed to deal with the problems of and those
caused by non-White immigrants. This became clear in 1968 when large numbers
of Asians from East Africa fearing the persecution of Idi Amin wished to move to
Britain. Most of these had been given the option when the former East African
colonies became independent of choosing British citizenship rather than that of
one of these East African states. Many chose to do so and could not be refused
permission under the 1962 Immigration Control Act. The British Home Secretary,
James Callaghan therefore rushed through legislation to require these East
African Asians to be queued so that only small numbers could be admitted each
year3. Thus a new contingent was added to the non-White British population.
A second fact was that, since the Commonwealth Immigration applied in
principle to immigrants from the Old White Commonwealth some way had to be
found of distinguishing them and exempting them from immigration control.
2
The implementation of the 1968 Act was considerably weakened by the fact that it depended on
the co-operation of Local Councils with regard to Housing and the trade unions with regard to
employment.
3
In 1972 however in the face of Idi Amin’s persecution and the failure of an attempt change East
Africa policies the Conservative Minister of Labour Robert Carr agreed to their admission. At
first they were brought to camps and then deliberately dispersed before many joined up with
existing East African Asian communities particularly in the city of Leicester...
3
This was achieved in 1971 through the introduction of the notion of patriality in
the Immigration Control Act of 1971 which freed those with a recent British
ancestry from immigration control while assimilating anyone without such a
patrial connection to the same status as aliens.
The period after 1971 saw two contrasting developments. On was the growth of
racism, the other a gradual evolution of organisations and policies on the
integration of minorities.
Racist Mobilisation in the Nineteen Sixties
Racism had been the driving force which led to the racially selective Immigration
Control Act of 1962.It was the pressure from Immigration Control Associations
in the Midlands which led to the passing of the 1962 Act. In the 1964 elections the
Labour Foreign Affairs spokesman Gordon Walker lost the Smethwick seat
against the overall swing to Labour when some Conservative canvassers used
the slogan “if you want a nigger for your neighbour vote Labour”. When
another Labour M.P. resigned in a safe Labour seat in London to make way for
Gordon Walker he was again defeated. In 1968 the leading Conservative Enoch
Powell made his notorious speech in Birmingham in which he envisaged “rivers
of blood” if Black and Asian immigration continued. Mrs Thatcher in opposition
suggested that the British people feared being “swamped” by Black and Asian
immigrants.
Policy and Organisations directed to Achieving a Non-Racial Citizenship
In opposition to this a number of key figures began to lay the ground for
immigration integration. Starting from the assumption that class divisions were
being overcome through the social citizenship offered by the Welfare State
(Marshall 1951) many followed a famous statement by Roy Jenkins the Home
Secretary, addressing a meeting of Non-Governmental Organisations arranged
by the NCCI in which he defined integration of immigrants “not as flattening
process of uniformity but cultural diversity coupled by equal opportunity in an
atmosphere of mutual tolerance” (Joppke 1999). Edward Boyle the Conservative
Member of Parliament led a section of the Party in refusing to make race an
election issue in 164 and 1970. Anthony Lester a leading Labour lawyer sought to
4
distance policy discussion from continuing racial conflict by proposing anti-racist
policies and he and Mark Bonham Carter of the Race Relations Board arranged
for a research programme which would uncover the extent of racial
discrimination. This research was carried out by the organisation Political and
Economic Planning (PEP) and led to a book Racial Discrimination in Britain,
(Daniel 1966) which was followed by three later studies carried out by PEP and
its successor the Policy Studies Institute (PSI) (Smith 1974, Brown 1982, and
Modood et al 1997). The assumption underlying all these developments was that
a British government would be committed to anti-racism as a matter of policy.
How far there was a political will to carry out such a policy was, however, to be
doubted. Successive governments also felt it necessary to respond to racist
pressures in the public and the media. Such problems continued when the
Runnymede Trust (Runnymede 2000)
produced a report calling for the
recognition that Britain was a multi-ethnic society and of the adoption of antiracism as a policy in all institution. The report was launched by the Home
Secretary, Jack Straw, who as a politician was subject to pressures from the Focus
Groups through which the government took account of public opinion...
Ethnic Questions in the Census
An important question which had to be faced in formulating anti-racist, antidiscrimination policies was that of discovering the size of minorities. In France
while statistics of birthplace and nationality were recorded, it was thought
entirely improper to record the ethnicity of its citizens. In Britain this was not the
case. The combating of racial discrimination and disadvantage through
redressive action was thought to require statistics of the numbers of people
thinking of themselves as belonging to an ethnic groups regardless of birthplace.
In 1981 the Census began to pursue this question by asking for the birthplace of
individuals and of their parents. In 1991, however, a new kind of question was
introduced. Individuals were now asked to what ethnic group they thought of
themselves as belonging. They were offered a choice of White, Black African
Black Caribbean or Black Other, Indian Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Sri Lankian,
Chinese, Other Asian or Other Other. This question was criticized by many as
5
illogical and potentially racist. Clearly White is not really an ethnic category.
Blacks are not allowed to see themselves as belonging to the same ethnic group
as White British. The Asian categories seem to relate to birthplace. The Whites
are a mixed group including not merely the native British but Irish Cypriots,
Maltese and Europeans. Finally there appears to be no recognition of groups of
mixed descent. There was also no religious question since this had been opposed
by the powerful Jewish lobby and very often the figures for Pakistanis and
Bangladeshis were taken as surrogates for the number of Muslims. Eventually a
religious question was introduced in the 2001 census. Some of the problems
relating to the ethnic question were discussed in a pamphlet written for the
Runnymede Trust by Kenneth Leech (Leech 1989)
Despite the criticism of the ethnic question it came to be supported by many
social scientists and policy makers in the nineties. It was said that only by
knowing who were placed or placed themselves in these categories would it be
possible to discover the extent of discrimination and disadvantage, and correct it.
If the main basis of discrimination was colour it was argued it was important to
make a first distinction between Whites and non-Whites. After this distinctions
could be made between various Black and Asian groups to show which ones
suffered the most severe forms of discrimination. This argument is
understandable, but it is interesting to notice that in the Fourth Survey of
Disadvantage carried out by Modood and his colleagues the census categories
are replaced by other more sophisticated ones.
Asylum Seekers and Illegals
After the passing of the immigration control acts of 1962 and 1968 the entry of
immigrants to seek work ceased apart from the continuing inflow of dependents.
In this immigration stop Britain led the way in Europe where other Western
European countries imposed the stop in the early seventies. Thereafter the main
incomers were asylum seekers or more broadly political as distinct from
economic migrants. Asylum seekers were admitted under the Geneva
Convention of 1951 which declared that to claim refugee status an individual
must have “a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of race, religion,
6
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion” There
were 85,865 such asylum applications in Britain in 2002. 42% 0f these were
granted refugee status and another 10% given “exceptional leave to remain” Of
the others some were removed and some returned voluntarily to their
homelands. The British government sought to reduce the numbers of asylum
seekers by declaring a number of countries as safe, by requiring applicants to
obtain visas from British offices in their home country or calling on potential
carriers to refuse to carry them. A much larger group
than those who could claim asylum were those who while not measuring up to
the Geneva Convention criteria found themselves living in intolerable political
conditions because of civil war or ecological disaster. The British government
usually refused to recognize those coming from these circumstances as refugees
and it was often claimed that they were really economic migrants masquerading
as refugees. In some cases there was truth in this in that with other immigration
routes being closed some of those who wished to migrate for economic reasons
chose the claim of refugee status as the only remaining route possible.
For governments the justification for accepting political migrants was quite
different from that for economic migrants. In the latter case they could claim that
the migrants were necessary to fill otherwise unfilled jobs, In the case of political
migrants they had to argue that whether or not the country benefited from their
presence the justification for accepting them could only rest upon some legal or
moral requirement. Some could, of course be shown to have useful professions or
skills as was often the case with Jewish refugees in the thirties, but their
usefulness in this regard was usually only seen retrospectively and they were
regarded as dangerous individuals who should be returned to their country of
origin as soon as possible. In the case of Gypsies or Roma the migrants from
these groups clamed that they were persecuted as a group whereas they could
only be recognized as refugees if they feared individual persecution. The
admission of gypsies fro the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania was often at
the centre of hostility to immigrants as such.
Some failed asylum seekers disappeared into the community where they joined a
number of other groups of illegal and undocumented workers. Some of these
were smuggled in to the country by people traffickers, but in large parts of the
7
agricultural and construction industry employers relied upon so-called
“gangmasters” to provide then with labour at a minimum cost. These illegal
workers were in a dilemma. Their conditions in terms of wages and housing
were appalling but if they sought to join trades unions their presence would
become known and they would be deported. It now seems that there is black
hole in employment statistics involving unknown numbers of illegals.
Class Race and Ethnicity from the Eighties to the present day
The problem of transcending class divisions and that of integrating immigrants
were as I have argued in discussing Marshall and Jenkins continually
intertwined. The interesting thing about Thatcher’s politics was not that it
opposed immigrant integration or treated immigrants as scapegoats. In fact her
belief in capitalism led her to take on the working class headed by the trades
unions and to defeat it. Her successor, John Major moreover did not oppose
immigrant integration. Hi ideal was a classless Britain in which anyone of any
background could get to the top. Finally New Labour policy under Blair dropped
any specific discussion of ethnic minorities as it emphasised replacing
dependence on welfare benefits with getting individuals back into the labour
market.
The Northern Disturbances and the Debate about Multiculturalism
In any discussion of policy alternatives with regard to immigrant minorities
Britain was usually classified as one of a number of countries which supported
multiculturalism as opposed to the assimilationism which was seen as the French
ideal and the notion implicit in the German gastarbeider system which in principle
refused to see incoming workers as permanent. This is a question which I have
discussed extensively in my book Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State,
(Rex 1996). When, however there were violent disturbances in some of the cities
of Lancashire and Yorkshire in 2002, the diagnosis of their problems was
attributed to the fact of segregation in housing and education. A report carried
out for the Home Office by Cantle the former Chief Executive of Nottingham
8
spoke of the need for community cohesion cutting across ethnic boundaries,
(Cantle 2001) while in Bradford an existing report by Herman Ouseley (Ouseley
2001)
)was used in a similar way. The idea of multiculturalism espoused by
Jenkins now appeared to be dead and this ideas endorsed by the Director of the
Commission for Racial Equality Trevor Phillips in 2004. (BBC April 2004). The
Home Secretary David Blunkett now organised ceremonies in which immigrants
would declare their loyalty to Britain and called for an insistence by local
authorities that all immigrants should learn the English language and also learn
about English values. A scheme for identity cards was also proposed with the
emphasis being placed upon immigrants having such cards. All of these changes
suggest that problems of integration were now being discussed in terms of a new
vocabulary and that British thinking had moved towards the French
assimilationist ideal.
Muslims and Islamophobia after 9/11
A number of developments in Britain had opened up divisions between Muslims
and the British even before the attacks in New York and Washington of
September 9th 2001. Migrantwatch had suggested that as immigration became
restricted Muslims should be kept out because they were difficult to assimilate
(Coleman 1999). The ideas of Samuel Huntington in the United States had
fostered the notion that Islam and the Christian and
secular West represented different and incompatible stage of development
(Huntington 1993) In Britain the Rushdie Affair produced renewed hostility to
Muslims symbolised by the burning of the Rushdie book (Samad 1992) The
Runnymede Trust published a report on Islamophobia (Runnymede Trust 1997)
drawing attention to the extent of hostility to Muslims. If this were not enough
after September 11th 2001 Muslims came to be viewed as potential terrorists.
Querying National Management of Migration Flows.
It is to be hoped that this review of the management of immigrant settlement in
Britain will put the title of this conference in perspective. It would seem that this
9
managerial approach to the problem actually takes sides by suggesting that
immigration flows constitute a potential threat to political stability.
10
References
Abbas, T., (2005) (Editor) Muslim Britain, Communities under Pressure, Zed books
distributed by Palgrave MacMillan, London and New York
Acton, T., and Kegan, P., (1974), Gypsy Politics and Social Change, Routledge,
London.
BBC News 10thApril 2004
Brown, C., (1982) Black and White Britain, Heineman Educational Books, London
Cantle, T., (December 2001), Building Cohesive Communities: A Report of the
Ministerial group on Public Order and Community Cohesion, Home Office, London.
Coleman, D., (1999) Contributions to Radio Discussions, e.g. Rites of Refuge, BBBC
Home Service 16 12 99.
Crossman, R., (1979), The Crossman Diaries, Selection from the diaries of a Cabinet
Minister 1964-70, introduced and edited by Anthony Howard, Magnum Books,
Methuen Paperbacks, London.
Daniel, W., (1966), Racial Discrimination in England, Harmondsworth, London
Goodhart, D., (2004), The Strangers Among Us, Originally in Prospect February
2002 London, Reproduced in the Guardian February 26th 2004.
Harris, N., (2002), Thinking the Unthinkable: The Myth of Immigration Control,
I.B.Taurus, London.
Hayter, T., (2000), Open Borders: the New Common Sense
Heinemann, B.W.Junior (1972), The Politics of Powerlessness: A study of the
Campaign Against Racial Discrimination, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Home Office (1963), Commonwealth immigrants Act, 1962; control of immigration
statistics for July 1962-30 June 1963, Home Office, Cmnd 2151
Huntington, S., (1993), The Clash of Civilizations in Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993
Vol 72 No3, Washington.
Joppke C., (1999) Immigration and the Nation State: the United States, Germany and
Great Britain, Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Leech, K., (1989), A Question of Dispute: The Debate about an “Ethnic” question in the
Census, Runnymede Trust. London
11
Marshall, T.H. (1951), Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge
Mason,P. (1976), The Institute of Race Relations, Centre for Southern African
Studies University of York.
Migrationwatch UK. (2002) Bulletin No7, Submitted to the House of Commons
2002.
Modood et al (2000), Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage, Policy
Studies Institute, London.
Mullard, C., (1985), Race Power and Resistance, Routledge and Kegan Paul London
1985
Ouseley, H., (July 2001), Community Pride and Prejudice, Bradford Vision,
Bradford City Council
Peach, C., (1967) West Indians as a Replacement Population in England and
Wales, Extract from Social and Economic Studies, Vol 16 No 3. pp 289-294
Rex, J., (1996) Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State, MacMillan,
Basingstoke.
Rex, J., and Tomlinson S., (1979), Colonial Immigrants in a British City: A Class
Analysis, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London
Rex, J., (2002) “Islam in the United Kingdom” in Shireen Hunter, Islam Europe’s
Second Religion”, Praeger New York in conjunction with The Council for Strategic
and International Studies, Washington.
Runnymede Trust (1997), Islamophobia: A Challenge to us all, Runnymede Trust
London.
Runnymede Trust (2000).The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain – The Parekh Report,
Runnymede Trust, London.
Samad, Y., (1992) Book-burning and Race Relations:Political Mobilisation of
Asians in Bradford, New Community, Vol 8 No 4, London.
Smith, D., (1974) Racial Disadvantage in Britain, Hammondsport, London.
12